Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:09:03 +0000 From: "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> Cc: "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/xargs Makefile strnsubst.c xargs.1 xargs.c Message-ID: <20020420000901.GE16783@FreeBSD.ORG> In-Reply-To: <200204192345.g3JNjqs79012@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <200204192328.g3JNSsA87474@freefall.freebsd.org> <200204192345.g3JNjqs79012@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:45:52PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 16:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> said: > > >Traditional behaviour should not be affected, use of -J should be deprecated > >in favor of the more portable -I (though -J has been left, for now). > > See the mailing-list archives. > > The `-J' option was implemnted because the standard `-I' and `-L' > options are inadequate. The semantics are different. Because of the size limitations? Okay, well, then -J could be implemented in terms of an unlimited -I case, but this would change behaviour due to the fact that -I does substring substitution (and other more intelligent things, imo), and so something like: xargs -J% echo foo%foo % foo-foo would have drastically different behaviour. Still, I'd like to have a non-limited version of -I in xargs(1)... What are the thoughts regarding that? -- jmallett@FreeBSD.org | C, MIPS, POSIX, UNIX, BSD, IRC Geek. http://www.FreeBSD.org | The Power to Serve "We all need mirrors to remind ourselves who we are -- I'm no different." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020420000901.GE16783>